Branding Vice | Hacker News Reader

Branding Vice

notvice.com

53 pointsI_HALF_CATS22 comments

The author of this article has a serious axe to grind with VICE which overshadows the few good points he makes. The photoshopped pictures of VICE executives with consumer brands are embarrassingly bad.

It does bother me that VICE sometimes over-editorializes some of its stories and does some truth stretching. Overall, I think the quality stories are worthwhile and I can just roll my eyes at the misinformative ones, e.g. many on motherboard.vice.com.

I clicked on another entry in this ranty blog and found a hilarious VICE parody done by the Onion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHvrirXi5Ds .

The other Vice parody link in the same article.

https://vimeo.com/121639159

via: https://notvice.com/everyone-is-laughing-at-vice-a82a33228b0...

P.S. I'm the author, will answer questions regarding my adversarial blog after work. (posted at lunch)

That was the article, thanks for introducing me to EDGE, it's great!

I'm looking forward for the discussion after you finish lunch.

Sorry. Got side tracked. Will reply as long as the thread stays open.

The rant might be genuine. Post McInnes VICE was not as provocative as it use to be. At present VICE just brings the politically correct news reporting in a provocative format. Clearly one has ignore facts in favor of a good story. Most news media does this I dont think why VICE should be singled out.

The whole zoo is like a fancy dress competition I dont see why VICE should be demonized or singled out.

P.S. Vice also remains probably the only media house to come up with these real off beat stories. They might have taken creative liberties with facts but then who does not ?

Examples:

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/life-as-a-member-of-i... http://www.vice.com/read/first-person-shooter-building-maint... http://www.vice.com/read/why-prisons-should-give-inmates-acc...

Companies that don't take creative liberties in the way you are suggesting:

New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post, NPR, PBS Frontline, BBC, CBC Radio, ProPublica, Associated Press, The Guardian.

Their code of ethics can be found here: http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics... http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=A_Brief_Guide_to_Standard... http://asne.org/content.asp?pl=236&sl=19&contentid=335 http://ethics.npr.org/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/about-us/journalisti... http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/ http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/act... https://www.propublica.org/about/code-of-ethics/ http://www.apme.com/?page=EthicsStatement http://www.theguardian.com/guardian/article/0,5814,642387,00...

Vice has editorials for sale if you happen to have $27,850: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cj_1xHMVAAE9FUs.jpg:large

What a trashy, incongruent rant of an article.

Regardless, a vast majority of their content doesn't include any reference to marketable brands. If the OP is accusing them of being a PR news agency, I have seen very little evidence of it. Questioning wether they are a business trying to earn a profit is incredibly naive.

However, if I was to criticize anything about their journalistic integrity, it's the tendency for their reporters to inject too much personal opinion. Though they do often succeed at concluding their pieces in a way that leaves the consumer considering multiple perspectives.

We don't have nearly enough (imperfect or not) media companies pursuing the types of stories Vice does. Given their willingness to publish exceptionable stories, it's no wonder there are significant attempts to discredit them.

The complaints in the article look valid to me? Is the data wrong or made up?

Its been very blatant since the early days of print that advertisers either received additional editorial coverage or had plausible problems ignored by writers. The most explicit is the automative review articles which describe a technical object with near poetry. Of course, car companies are a huge advertiser for most newspapers and magazines.

So Vice produces some very edgy well researched content about topics which push in to the land of the dark things big corporations do and are involved in such as slave labor in the Middle East. Of course companies that are worried Vice is the next 60 Minutes sign up and fork over money in excess of what programatic buying would dictate the market rate is.

If advertisers are "buying" native content that has to be disclosed - period - yet because it is hardly enforced almost no one cares.

A handful of Vice articles I've read over the years have touched on my personal sphere - people or causes I'm directly involved with. Their fact checking is actually quite poor. They get tons of easily verified stuff wrong. Moreover, I've seen at least two instances where such errors prevented a brand/product/person from being perceived in a negative light. Some of their articles have been wrong to the point of the entire article being incorrect (like their 'first clown escort' story).

I'm sure they do or have done some quality journalism, but the amount of bullshit they do shovel leaves them suspect as a whole to me.

Yes their fact-checking is really poor in some articles. Their tech reporting is awful. I love their international stories, such as the North Korea special. Do you know of any inaccuracies in these stories?

From what I have read elsewhere most of those stories seem to be in line with what the world at large knows. It is hard to tell if it's just two different parts of the shop lead by by different management with different goals.

We don't have nearly enough ... media companies pursuing the types of stories Vice does.

They do exist, Great Big Story http://www.greatbigstory.com for one.

And to think they tried to hire me.

I guess in some multiverse you're simultaneously trying to advocate and discredit me at the same time.

Since I'm the author of the article and you seem passionate about the subject if you have any specific criticisms. Like a fact I got wrong or something please share! Unlike Vice, I'm open to corrections.

Example: This news article is an advertisement in disguise: http://www.vice.com/read/david-shapiro-supremacist-supreme-s...

Is there a publication that does edgy, interesting content like Vice but isn't tied up in advertising controversy? This is a multi-layered question so answer however you like, I'm genuinely curious.

Many indie documentary companies are edgy. Just look at what plays at festivals like 'hotdocs'.

Speaking more generally about journalism you can try The Intercept.

But if you want more established sources where you have to dig for edgy content you can try New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post, NPR, PBS Frontline, BBC, CBC Radio, ProPublica, Associated Press and The Guardian.

4chan

Well played, though I'd wager between trolling and conspiracy theories it's near impossible to pick out legitimate information from the rest.

Is it "injecting" if the content was native-advertising to begin with?

If it was it wasn't labeled correctly. That said, it appears that many of the examples even six or seven years old; before even the FTC suggested labeling guidelines came out (and the actual rules only came out in December).

Reading more of this site the author comes not as having a very personal vendetta against Vice (although there's not really a hint as to what has set it off). I'm very skeptical of the underlying agenda here.

As a disclaimer, I stopped consuming VICE for this exact reason. I'm more skeptical of the underlying agenda of VICE than some rando blogger with an axe to grind.

I call it the "Wired Style".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com